112. Comprehensive upgrading of facilities into a fishing port [5] serving mainly white fish trawlers. A total berth length for smaller vessels, especially wet-fish trawlers, of about 200 m (about 50 m more than current) is anticipated for 1995, increasing by another 300 m by 2005 and perhaps by another by 2105. In terms of Strategic Context 3 limited commercial facilities might be added to accommodate low-volume freight while a new port is being built at Cape Cross (CC1).

113. Any new container and general cargo facilities are developed in the existing port by commercial operators. However, no major infrastructural expansion is envisaged before 2015. Under the rapid growth scenario long-term planning for port expansion might begin after 2005. In terms of Strategic Context 1, such expansion would comprise a future seaward extension of the existing port (under use of basic planning by Namibia Ports Authority (NamPort)). In terms of Strategic Contexts 2 and 3, any new port development would take place at Cape Cross, either in the form of a new port (CC1), or by expansion of a fishing port already built there (CC2).

114. Bulk cargo facilities are constructed by private enterprise at the port for moderate volumes, but at dedicated terminals outside the port for large volumes. For Strategic Contexts 2 and 3 such facilities would be provided north of Swakopmund. One special bulk facility would be for cement (0,6 millions tpa by 2005 and 3,0 millions tpa by 2015 for rapid growth scenario, requiring one 180 m berth for each 0,6 millions tpa). Excluding cement, the rapid growth scenario for general cargo is 0,9 millions tpa by 2015 requiring 2 berths, for containers 1 berth and for dry bulk cargo up to 4 berths.

135. A new port concept of "Flexiport"-technology could be an interesting alternative for the Cape Cross and/or Möwe Bay sites and even the Walvis Bay fishing port expansion alternative. Cost aspects and speed of construction seem to be very interesting. A stage construction concept can be followed according to requirements. The residual value of such "pre-fabricated port system" is very high, the port system can even be re-erected at different sites. System lends itself to leasing. The concept could be suitable for a small fishing port (3 pontoons initially), be that at a northern location (Möwe Bay) or for a combined commercial/fishing port (Cape Cross) with bigger pontoon combinations (6 to 9 pontoons) or even for a extension for the fishing port at Walvis Bay or for somewhat different requirements at Lüderitz.

136. A 3-pontoons port with all adjacent internal port infrastructure can be built within 12 to 15 months for approximately 50% of the costs of a conventional port. A preliminary cost estimate for such a "Flexiport" port at Cape Cross is approximately US $ 24 million (end 1992-prices) [6]. This estimate is based on the following:

- 3 Pontoons 90,0 m x 27,5 m x 5,6 m

- 2 Bridges between pontoons, 10 m each x 27,5 m

- 1 Ro-ro terminal pontoon 10 m wide x 27,5 m

- 1 Causeway 110 m long for 2 lane traffic with walkway (in 2 sections of 55m
    with 2 piles support and mooring system per section) (inside docking in bad
    weather and both side docking in good weather).

The price includes (if built in Holland) training, first year management, transportation, installation and commission. Furthermore it is envisaged to integrate a fish processing plant or plants in one or more pontoons. This will not interfere with the normal cargo movement but will create earlier amortisation of the costs of the installation. Cold storage should be included in the scheme. Each pontoon will have some 5.000 m³ of free storage space within the pontoons.

137. Detailed investigations into such a system will have to be taken place. Many intricate questions have to be answered by intensive in-situ examinations. A brief preliminary listing, as it is seen at this early stage of investigation, of the pros and cons of the floating "Flexiport" port installations for a harbour site along the Namibian North Coast is as follows:

PROS: (in random order)

1. Relative speed and ease of construction and installation: benefit/cost analysis has still to be done;

2. Thus relatively short commissioning time vs. conventional construction (rather in terms of months and not in years as for a conventional port) - but quantification of the time benefit factor must be established by further investigations;

3. Modular construction, thus can add/reduce pontoons as time and requirements determine: It has still to be determined by in-situ investigation how feasible this is in practice;

4. Capital costs (see: para. 134) appear to be attractive - but require further verification on an "oranges vs. oranges" basis;

5. Multi-purpose use: Hollow hull allows internal storage and/or for various industrial purposes: like fish processing - full application and advantages require verification, whilst structure per se allows quay facilities alongside and storage on deck;

6. "Known" technology and apparent accepted application, but calls for more detailed technical information;

7. Possible local (total or part) construction: requires in-situ determination/verification (see: para. 134). If feasible, this could mean the beginning of a Namibian marine industry or a revitalisation of Walvis Bay's: creation of additional employment, this applies also to the maintenance requirements;

8. Technology transfer.

CONS: (in random order)

1. Stability on Namibia's open/exposed sea and shore conditions (e.g. at Cape Cross or Möwe Bay) is yet unknown and requires detailed investigations and verifications;

2. Protection against swell and currents afforded to vessels tied up alongside the floating structures, requires analysis for Namibian conditions;

3. Life of structures vs. that of conventional reinforced concrete structures is assumed less, but requires verification;

4. High(er) maintenance costs and regular maintenance vs. that of a conventional reinforced concrete structures: requires determination/verification to compare benefit/ cost vs. conventional structures;

7.4 SUPPORTING PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND RESOURCES

NOTA:   * Under option 4, the population of Walvis Bay decreases by 10,000 to 2005 and by another
                        10,000 to 2015.
                + Swakopmund, Henties Bay and small coastal settlements between Walvis Bay and Cape
                        Cross.

139. For the Walvis Bay expansion option no major new physical infrastructure will be required. A major obstacle, however, is the future provision with potable water. The water supply restrictions render the medium to long term capacity for expansion at W.B. as extremely limited.

140. From the present population of 28.000, the population growth over the planning period can be estimated to 40.000, and 70.000 if the Möwe Bay fishing port is not built. An increase in social infrastructural facilities, that is housing, schools, hospitals etc., may be required in line of the new housing and labour policies of the Republic of Namibia (Strategic Context 1).

141. The preliminary estimated present-day engineering costs to provide such additional social infrastructure is of the order of some R 142 million per 10.000 capita (US $ 47,24 million) increase over the present capacity. Thus for an expansion of 40.000 over the planning period, the total additional present-day engineering cost is estimated with US $ 228,96 million.

142. This estimate provides for:

- New medium-cost housing (500 houses per 10.000 at 5 persons per house -
         balance of housing assumed to be provided by the private sector);

- Surfaced streets;

- Reticulation systems for water, sewer and electricity;

- Schools, clinics and hospitals;

143. This option carries with it the establishment of an entirely new physical and social infrastructural base. For this scenario on the base of 70.000 population, replicating the total physical and social infrastructure at Walvis Bay, the preliminary, estimated present-day engineering cost is approximately US $ 546,44 million over the planning period to 2015. This amount includes for:

- Upgrading of the existing main road 44 and district road 2301 between Swakopmund and Henties Bay and further to Cape Cross [7]. Such upgrading has been justified by above feasibility study on criteria excluding port considerations. A summary of the planning report for this road will follow in the next section of this Study.

- New medium-cost housing (500 state-owned houses per 10.000 population) in an entirely new township;

- Reticulation systems for water, sewer and electricity;

- Schools, hospitals and clinics;

- New bulk electrical and water supply systems;

- New bulk water supply sources.

145. The upgraded access road from Swakopmund to Cape Cross (and eventually further to Möwe Bay) comprises approximately 120 km of road, consisting of main road 44 between Swakopmund and Henties Bay and district road 2301 between Henties Bay and Cape Cross. The existing road consists of a gypsum-salt gavel pavement and has a poor vertical and horizontal alignment, which do not conform to a 120 km/h design standard. During wet conditions, mainly due to the coastal fog, the top layer soften significantly, resulting in a slippery surface [9]. The situation is aggravated at night, when visibility is severely limited by fog and the absence of road markings.

146. Two alternatives were investigated during the basic planning phase. Alternative 1 from Swakopmund to Henties Bay and Alternative 2 deviating nearer to the sea, north of Henties Bay, were evaluated and the choice of the alignment was influenced by the following factors:

- Preserve the aesthetic appearance of the desert by staying as close as practically feasible to the existing salt gravel road and/or sea;

- Avoid major lichen fields, Damara Tern nesting sites and important archaeological sites;

- Avoid salt and mining claims;

- Retain the existing salt gravel road as a detour and

- Accommodate, where possible, the proclaimed alignment (co-ordinated, but not constructed) and sections of the basic planning completed at Swakopmund and Henties Bay.

147. At Wlotzkasbaken, Alternative 1 keeps to the existing road, to the west of the proclaimed route, in order to avoid the rich lichen fields to the east of this settlement. Alternative 1 traverses the Jakkalsputz salt pan, since a deviation around the pan (2,5 km inland in the case of the proclaimed route) would leave a vast area of desert vulnerable to uncontrolled vehicle movement, as well as disturbing a large Damara Tern nesting site. At the Lagunenberge, Alternative 1 was aligned between the existing road and the proclaimed route in order to achieve a design standard of 120 km/h on the one hand, and limiting uncontrolled access into the Lagunenberge, which hosts a variety of lichens, on the other. Furthermore, Alternative 1 follows the existing road some 1,8 km east from the sea between Henties Bay and Mile 68 over a distance of 20 km, while Alternative 2 deviates to the high back dune next to the beach.

148. The initial (1992) equivalent annual average daily traffic (AADT) on main road 44 is 672 vehicles and on district road 2301 256 vehicles. The traffic growth calculated according to available data from the Ministry of Works, Transport and Communication is 5% p.a. Dierks [10] has proved that the quality and cost optimised point to surface a good gravel road with a full bitumen surfaced pavement lies in an AADT in excess of 500. Due to the present low traffic loading on DR 2301 of an AADT=256, an economical pavement design was introduced in order to improve the benefits over the costs of this road with approximately 60%. This picture will change with the establishment of a port at Cape Cross and/or Möwe Bay. A small or medium fishing port would increase the traffic on MR 44/DR 2301 with 20% respective 40%. A large commercial port at Cape Cross would increase the traffic with 60%. The alternative pavement design was based on the possibility of constructing a small to medium size port, with corresponding 30% increase in traffic.

149. The feasibility investigations furthermore revealed the urgent feasibility of a road by-pass at Swakopmund to be included into the access road to Cape Cross/Möwe Bay, since all traffic from Windhoek, Walvis Bay and Henties Bay now traverses the Central Business District of Swakopmund with the resulting noise and gas pollution and traffic safety risks. The completion of the Trans Caprivi and Trans Kalahari highways will generate additional heavy vehicle traffic between the Namibian Atlantic Coast and Namibia's eastern neighbouring countries, all travelling through the CBD of Swakopmund.

150. A total of three alternative by-pass alignments have been evaluated, all starting at the Swakop River Bridge at Swakopmund and ending at km 3,965 on MR 44, a distance of some 8 km. Alternative 1 follows the southern and eastern perimeters of Central Swakopmund to join Winter Street, passing the industrial area, and joining MR 44 which runs between the residential areas of Vineta and Tamariskia to the common end point at km 3,965. Alternative 2 follows the same alignment as Alternative 1, but instead of using Winter Street, it deviates around the residential areas of Tamariskia and Mondesa. Alternative 3 is the furthest from the town perimeter leaving enough space for the town and industrial area to extend in the medium term. Alternative 1 provides the best access to the industrial area and the CBD, but does not serve as a by-pass to heavy transit traffic between Henties Bay and Windhoek and limits the medium extension of the resident area of Kramersdorf. Alternative 2 does not provide adequate access to the industrial area, but serves as a by-pass to all transit traffic and with the same limitations to the extension of Kramersdorf as Alternative 1. Alternative 3 provides poor access to the industrial area, but serves transit traffic the best and poses little restriction to the extension of Kramersdorf.

151. The planning study recommended that MR 44 and DR 2301 between Swakopmund and Henties Bay (but without the deviation to the sea between Henties Bay and Mile 68) be upgraded to a full bitumen surfaced standard according to Alternative 1, with an economical pavement design for DR 2301 when a medium scale fishing port to a full commercial port at Cape Cross is seen only as a medium to long term project. The Swakopmund by-pass should be built according to Alternative 2 with the relevant alterations in alignment to include Winter Street as a first phase and accommodate it as an arterial in the second phase.

NOTA: 1: OCC Opportunity Cost of Capital. For investments by commercial enterprises the time cost of money is assumed to be an average of the short-term and long-term rates of interests. When the effect of public investment in highways is considered, the interest rate must reflect the return on investment in the national economy.

2: NPV Net Present Value

The NPV of a given investment is obtained by subtracting the present value of the future benefits. The benefits as well as the costs are discounted at the OCC discount rate. The investment is feasible if the NPV is positive.

3: IRR Internal Rate of Return

The IRR of a given project is defined as the discount rate at which the present value of benefits and the present value of costs are equal. It is a measure of the marginal efficiency of capital. For a project to be feasible, the IRR has to be greater than the average of the OCC.

 153. During 1992 the feasibility of a railway line to a future port site at Cape Cross was investigated. Two of the more likely lines were investigated and compared on a design, topographical, infrastructural, constructional and economic basis. A cost estimate was prepared for these two lines finally chosen:

- Cape Cross to Trekkopje : US $ 35 500 000: 132 km

- Cape Cross to Omaruru via Uis: US $ 56 614 833: 232 km

The investigation involved a route location study which determined the most cost-effective solution for the alternative routes, taking the following aspects into consideration:

- possible traffic flows

- railway, port and other infrastructural requirements

- drainage structures

- road/rail grade separation structures

- known mineral deposits

- labour intensive construction

- economic advantage to the region.

154. From an engineering point of view both lines are feasible. No insurmountable features occur along these routes and all the design criteria can be met as far as geometric requirements are concerned. No serious engineering constraints to the construction and operation of these lines across the Namib Desert to the Atlantic Coast are foreseen. The railway line should not have a great effect on the environment and the socio-economic benefits will far outweigh any negative influences on the environment. The following specifications were considered:

1. Rail section used: 30 kg/m on concrete sleepers

2. Permissible axle loads: 16,5 tons per axle

3. Minimum curve radii: 600 m

4. Ruling grade: 1:66

5. Nature of traffic conveyed: general goods, minerals

6. Allowable speed of trains: 60 km/h

7. Traction mode: Diesel-electric locomotives

8. Methods of trains operating: Radio control (control office at Cape Cross)

9. Train length: 140 axles (35 wagons).

157. As for Cape Cross, this option provides for an entirely new physical and social infrastructural base to support a capita base of 30.000 by 2015. The preliminary estimated present-day engineering cost is approximately some US $ 520,35 million per 30.000 population. This amount includes for:

- Upgrading existing district road 2301 between Cape Cross and Möwe Bay (approximately 321 km);

- Upgrading existing district roads 2620 and 3245 between Torra Bay and Khorixas (approximately 210 km) to a high standard surfaced road (approx. US $ 31 million). In case of minor upgradings only of the road the cost would be approx. US $ 7 million;

- Mew medium-cost housing (500 houses per 10.000) in an entirely new township with surfaced streets, reticulation of water, sewers and electricity;

- Schools, hospitals and clinics;

- New bulk electrical and water supply systems including bulk water provision;

- An airfield similar to that envisaged for the Cape Cross option.

* If instead of developing the existing fishing harbour, a northern extension is developed, project numbers WB1-C & WB1-D apply, and the costs increase as follows:

Option 2A: 1995 - 2005: +US$ 1,15 mm
Total: +US$ 1,15 mm

Option 2B: 1995 - 2005 : +US$ 11,30 mm
Total: +US$ 11,30 mm

(Unit: million US$; US$ 1 = N$ 3,5